Sunday, March 31, 2013
sticking with their assumptions
let me get this straight: american public schools have problems. policy makers blame poor teachers for many of the problems. so states attempt to evaluate teachers so they can find the poor teachers and take action against them.
but then once the evaluation system is up and running it finds that 97-98% of the teachers perform at or above effective levels. education reform people seem to think this means that teachers weren't evaluated properly. but isn't it just as likely that teachers aren't as big of a problem as policy-makers has assumed them to be? and if policy-makers won't budge from the "bad teacher" hypothesis no matter what new information they get, why should anyone listen to them?
but then once the evaluation system is up and running it finds that 97-98% of the teachers perform at or above effective levels. education reform people seem to think this means that teachers weren't evaluated properly. but isn't it just as likely that teachers aren't as big of a problem as policy-makers has assumed them to be? and if policy-makers won't budge from the "bad teacher" hypothesis no matter what new information they get, why should anyone listen to them?
Saturday, March 30, 2013
horrified by someone washing a woman's feet
don't get me wrong, traditionalist catholics are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. i just don't understand why they would think anyone other than the small number of people worldwide who happen to also be their own particular flavor of traditionalist catholic would want to be catholic if their narrow-minded views of church doctrine prevailed.
Friday, March 29, 2013
that TAL disability piece
i listened to this week's TAL, "trends with benefits", and the companion planet money podcast. as it happens i am well aware of the social security disability/SSI world, as my first job out of law school was doing the very work criticized in the TAL piece. i hated that job, i was there for less than one year, and i still celebrate z- liberation day each year on the anniversary of the day i quit. while i don't necessarily endorse all of MMA's beefs with the piece, i do have some problems with it.
in act one of the TAL episode, chana joffe-walt notes that the doctor evaluating SSI/SSDI applicants about their level of education. she notes that's not a medical question (which is true) but then goes on to say that it has nothing to do with whether someone is "disabled." we then hear the doctor defend his question by noting that he is trying to determine if they are able to perform "gainful employment."
the piece makes it seem like the doctor is overstepping his bounds by getting into whether there are jobs that the patient is able to do rather than just the narrow question about an individual's medical limitations. but actually that is the legal standard that governs the social security administration's decision whether to find someone disabled. the statute defines the standard to be whether the applicant can be expected to perform any "substantial gainful activity" available in the local economy. that's right, that doctor's comment that joffe-walt presented as going beyond what should be relevant for a disability claim was actually echoing the legal definition of what qualifies a person for disability benefits under the law. in applying that standard, stuff like education is legally relevant.
it also bugged me when joffe-walt presented how social security lawyers get paid. she accurately noted that the lawyers receive a percentage (up to 25%) of the applicants backpay award if they are successful. but for some reason, she presented it as odd that the attorney's fee is paid directly to the attorney from the social security administration rather than to the claimant and then having the claimant pass on the fee amount to the lawyer. the two are really equivalent, except that having an direct payment is easier and avoids legal disputes between lawyers and clients.
but what really bothered me were several other things that joffe-walt did not mention about the fee arrangement: (a) the 25% cap on legal fees is set by law and is substantially lower than the standard contingent fee percentage in most other kinds of cases, which usually run between 30 and 40%, (b) direct payment from the social security administration is only permitted if the client pre-authorizes that arrangement in writing, and (c) in many contingent fee cases, it is not unusual for the losing side to issue two checks, one to the attorney and one to the claimant. the direct payment arrangement that joffe-walt described in social security cases is not extraordinary as she describes. it actually works pretty much like it does in an auto accident case, where the insurance carrier will often cut a portion of the settlement check to the lawyer and another portion to the injured party.
that being said, the main thrust of the reports are correct: it's not good policy to use this disability program as a de facto way to support displaced workers who no longer are able to get jobs in a changed economy. and yet, i'm still concerned by the potential political impact of the piece.
in a perfect world, the reaction to the piece would be a constructive debate about how to help displaced workers and come up with a program that suits them so they don't have to shoe-horn themselves into the disability program to survive. but this isn't a perfect world. if the piece generates political waves, we all know it will be to cut back on the disability program to prevent its misuse without doing anything to help the displaced worker who might be thrown off the disability system because of the reforms. for that reason (like yglesias), i would rather we just leave the disability program alone. it is a bad vehicle for helping people who are displaced by our economy, but it's one of the only vehicles available. in the current climate there's virtually no chance that the government will create something else to help them.
in act one of the TAL episode, chana joffe-walt notes that the doctor evaluating SSI/SSDI applicants about their level of education. she notes that's not a medical question (which is true) but then goes on to say that it has nothing to do with whether someone is "disabled." we then hear the doctor defend his question by noting that he is trying to determine if they are able to perform "gainful employment."
the piece makes it seem like the doctor is overstepping his bounds by getting into whether there are jobs that the patient is able to do rather than just the narrow question about an individual's medical limitations. but actually that is the legal standard that governs the social security administration's decision whether to find someone disabled. the statute defines the standard to be whether the applicant can be expected to perform any "substantial gainful activity" available in the local economy. that's right, that doctor's comment that joffe-walt presented as going beyond what should be relevant for a disability claim was actually echoing the legal definition of what qualifies a person for disability benefits under the law. in applying that standard, stuff like education is legally relevant.
it also bugged me when joffe-walt presented how social security lawyers get paid. she accurately noted that the lawyers receive a percentage (up to 25%) of the applicants backpay award if they are successful. but for some reason, she presented it as odd that the attorney's fee is paid directly to the attorney from the social security administration rather than to the claimant and then having the claimant pass on the fee amount to the lawyer. the two are really equivalent, except that having an direct payment is easier and avoids legal disputes between lawyers and clients.
but what really bothered me were several other things that joffe-walt did not mention about the fee arrangement: (a) the 25% cap on legal fees is set by law and is substantially lower than the standard contingent fee percentage in most other kinds of cases, which usually run between 30 and 40%, (b) direct payment from the social security administration is only permitted if the client pre-authorizes that arrangement in writing, and (c) in many contingent fee cases, it is not unusual for the losing side to issue two checks, one to the attorney and one to the claimant. the direct payment arrangement that joffe-walt described in social security cases is not extraordinary as she describes. it actually works pretty much like it does in an auto accident case, where the insurance carrier will often cut a portion of the settlement check to the lawyer and another portion to the injured party.
that being said, the main thrust of the reports are correct: it's not good policy to use this disability program as a de facto way to support displaced workers who no longer are able to get jobs in a changed economy. and yet, i'm still concerned by the potential political impact of the piece.
in a perfect world, the reaction to the piece would be a constructive debate about how to help displaced workers and come up with a program that suits them so they don't have to shoe-horn themselves into the disability program to survive. but this isn't a perfect world. if the piece generates political waves, we all know it will be to cut back on the disability program to prevent its misuse without doing anything to help the displaced worker who might be thrown off the disability system because of the reforms. for that reason (like yglesias), i would rather we just leave the disability program alone. it is a bad vehicle for helping people who are displaced by our economy, but it's one of the only vehicles available. in the current climate there's virtually no chance that the government will create something else to help them.
freedom ain't free
that's why no one should ever taking these freedom rankings seriously. they are always based on a bunch of debatable value judgments of what "freedom" means, but marketed as a ranking on some kind of objective scale. you might as well just say "i like north dakota best" instead of pretending that it's anything other than one particular opinion.
(via atrios)
(via atrios)
i guess it's all عيد الفصح
my predominantly jewish law firm is closed for good friday, but not for passover. (not that i mind being off today)
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
poor dean chambers
no matter what, any time he publicly states any opinion he will always be known as that "unskewed polls guy."
actually, it would be nice if all commentators got tagged with a byline summarizing their most notable failure. i wonder what mine would be.
actually, it would be nice if all commentators got tagged with a byline summarizing their most notable failure. i wonder what mine would be.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
first state national monument
i grew up in delaware. so for years i heard about how we were the only state that didn't have a national park. that always made sense to me as delaware didn't seem to have anything good enough to qualify. i mean, no one goes to the grand canyon and says, "this got to be a national park? what about old swedes church?!?!?!"
but that was before the first state got itself a VPOTUS. and so senator joe, as he was known when i was growing up (or "hunt's dad" after i reached 7th grade), made this happen. they still all seem pretty lame to me. but at least that's one less thing for first staters to gripe about.
but that was before the first state got itself a VPOTUS. and so senator joe, as he was known when i was growing up (or "hunt's dad" after i reached 7th grade), made this happen. they still all seem pretty lame to me. but at least that's one less thing for first staters to gripe about.
that wudu that you do so well
whew, just a mop sink! that was a close one. because if it were a place for scary people to wash their stinky feet, then the legislature would have no choice but to impose taliban-style shariah across the hog and hominy state.
(via)
(via)
төрт
what i said last year, but strike "third" and replace it with "fourth"
and i had forgotten about that big steaming pile of shit. good times.
and i had forgotten about that big steaming pile of shit. good times.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
staring into the abyss
a
Saturday, March 23, 2013
say it like you mean it
while i'm glad that obama got netanyahu to do it, how sincere are the turks going to take an apology that was clearly the product of american arm-twisting?
wingnut logic
um, there's no hypocrisy here. yglesias didn't say that property is a myth. he said that property didn't exist prior to the state. in other words, he is saying that the state creates property rights, something that is actually true. and even if he were wrong there's no hypocrisy in believing that the state creates a right and then exercising that right.
what jim and andy are really excited about is the fact that yglesias bought an expensive house. which matters because... um, who knows why?
(via memeorandum)
what jim and andy are really excited about is the fact that yglesias bought an expensive house. which matters because... um, who knows why?
(via memeorandum)
Friday, March 22, 2013
quantico shooting prediction
i haven't seen the name of the shooter yet, but i bet if it turns out to be something like nidal malik hasan, right blogistan will be screaming "terra terra terra!" and will voice outrage if the government classifies the incident a mere violent act.
if, on the other hand, the name of the perpetrator turns out to be something like tim or james, it's just going to be another one of those cases of workplace violence that we can't do anything about because of the second amendment and freedom fries.
if, on the other hand, the name of the perpetrator turns out to be something like tim or james, it's just going to be another one of those cases of workplace violence that we can't do anything about because of the second amendment and freedom fries.
today's shocking revelation!
apparently, two complete dickheads tried to join forces to vanquish lord mittens in the primary so they could get blown away in the general election. but they were unable to consummate their political suicide pact because of their massive egos.
наурыз мейрамы құтты болсын motherfuckers!
three years ago today, the man in this picture tried to teach me how to play the mancala-style game sitting on the table in front of him. through trial and error (we had no languages in common), i mostly figured out the rules of the game that i later learned was called "nine pieces of sheep shit."
what a long strange trip it's been. happy nauryz (or however you want to spell it)!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
analogies
 |
| Ruins of American Hill Base, Hai Van Pass, Vietnam |
weigel quotes south carolina representative jeff duncan making the following analogy:
In Vietnam, we took a hill and defeated the enemy, then we retreated and let the enemy take over. In the sequester we've held that ground... the momentum is with us.but in vietnam the u.s. fought for and held plenty of hills (mmm, hamburger). it's just that after a while it became clear that the american-backed south vietnamese dictatorship and the american war effort itself did not have enough support among either the vietnamese or american populace to make the war sustainable.
for a party whose major problem is a shrinking demographic of supporters, it's an odd choice of an analogy to bring up a war that was lost primarily because of shrinking levels of popular support.
war is expensive
the iraq war costs the u.s. "at least $2.2 trillion" it's "at least" because even though u.s. forces have left iraq, we still are paying for the war and won't know the total costs for a while. how long is a while? possibly more than a century. we still can't tally the total cost of the civil war as the bills are still trickling in 148 years after it ended.
something to consider the next time a politician gives us a low-ball cost estimate while trying to talk us into another ill fated adventure.
something to consider the next time a politician gives us a low-ball cost estimate while trying to talk us into another ill fated adventure.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
annoying housekeeping post
so my comment system was "upgraded" against my will to new disqus. i had tried out new disqus, didn't like it, and so opted to stay with the old system. but this week they eliminated old disqus and so here i am with the new.
the reason this matters is new disqus defaults the order it displays comments to show the comment its algorithm decides is the "best" on top, rather than in chronological order. if you go to a thread with more than one comment and want to see them in the order they were posted with the oldest comment on top and the newest on the bottom (i.e. how my comments have always been before this week), you need to click on the "discussion" option above all the comments and then select "oldest." you each have to do it yourself. your adjustment to the "discussion" setting will only change how the thread is displayed to you. not anyone else. and you will need to do it again every time you come back to the comment thread, because disqus will keep defaulting back to "best" whenever you leave.
it's incredibly annoying. i tried to figure out how to make the "oldest" the default setting, but the disqus administrator's page did not give that option. so i wrote to disqus via the help page, and got a message back today that basically said i can't change the default from "best" and that's good because my commentators each get to "choose which sort order works best for them".
i still think it's confusing and that most people won't think to click on the "discussion" option on the comment page to change the default. but i'm letting you know just so that you can adjust the settings if it annoys you as much as it annoys me.
the reason this matters is new disqus defaults the order it displays comments to show the comment its algorithm decides is the "best" on top, rather than in chronological order. if you go to a thread with more than one comment and want to see them in the order they were posted with the oldest comment on top and the newest on the bottom (i.e. how my comments have always been before this week), you need to click on the "discussion" option above all the comments and then select "oldest." you each have to do it yourself. your adjustment to the "discussion" setting will only change how the thread is displayed to you. not anyone else. and you will need to do it again every time you come back to the comment thread, because disqus will keep defaulting back to "best" whenever you leave.
it's incredibly annoying. i tried to figure out how to make the "oldest" the default setting, but the disqus administrator's page did not give that option. so i wrote to disqus via the help page, and got a message back today that basically said i can't change the default from "best" and that's good because my commentators each get to "choose which sort order works best for them".
i still think it's confusing and that most people won't think to click on the "discussion" option on the comment page to change the default. but i'm letting you know just so that you can adjust the settings if it annoys you as much as it annoys me.
war through an archive
to recapture that spirit of ten years ago, i reread atrios' posts from march 19, 2003. i know i was reading those posts when they first went up and i think that day's worth is a nice window into the madness that was gripping the country through the site of one person who wasn't on the crazy train.
the good news is that things really are different now. i remember wondering back then when the war fever would end. it did end. i just can't point my finger to exactly when it stopped.
the good news is that things really are different now. i remember wondering back then when the war fever would end. it did end. i just can't point my finger to exactly when it stopped.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
bastard son of the iraq war
this week is the tenth anniversary of the american invasion of iraq. no doubt there will be a bunch of retrospectives this week. i can't believe it's been ten years already. but at the same time, the period leading up to the war seems like it was a million years ago.
i wonder if this blog would exist if the iraq war had not happened. i was aware of blogs for several years before the run up to the war. my old friend sarah had a (now defunct) blog called "fiendish plot" where she would post her own personal musings. i learned about political blogs at some point in 2002 when the new york times published a letter i wrote and i googled my name shortly afterwards. that led me to a bunch of rightwing blogs mocking my letter, and one liberal blog quoting it approvingly. the first political blog i read on a regular basis was tom tomorrow's blog (which still exists, but doesn't post as often as it used to), which i found by a url printed in the margin of one of the "this modern world" comics. tom's blogroll and in-post links led me to greater left blogistan, such as it was in late 2002.
but i was just a casual reader. what really sucked me into the political blog world were the months immediately preceding the iraq war. the pre-war mania seemed ridiculous beyond belief. the reasons for invading were so transparent, and shifted from one moment to the next. i honestly couldn't believe it was actually happening and that mainstream political commentators were taking this stuff seriously. i mean, who was i? just some young labor lawyer, with an amateur interest in the middle east and who had been trying on-and-off to study arabic as a hobby. i was far from an expert and yet, i regularly saw politicians and journalists report as true things that were obviously false with no correction (like the saddam-bin laden alliance, which only made sense if you had no fucking clue about the political landscape of the arab world). it felt like the world had gone mad. and people, real people, were going to die just because my country had gone off the deep end.
liberal blogs were the only place i could read about politics that weren't gripped by the madness. they were totally ineffective, unfortunately. by that i mean that, for all the blog triumphalism that had been in vogue at various points over the past decade, it was still obvious that they weren't going to stop the march to war any more than the keyboard kommandos were going to win it for freedom. but it was comforting to see that i wasn't the only one to think the country had lost its collective mind.
once i was sucked into reading those blogs, it was only a matter of time before i felt like writing my own. and this site was officially born at the beginning of june 2003. actually, i claimed upyernoz.blogspot.com a month or so before that. it sat for a little while as a template with no posts as i tried to figure out what i wanted to do with this place (which is what my first post refers to). bloggy, that liberal blog that quoted my letter approvingly months before, was the first site to link to me. then this blog pretty much went downhill from there. but it is still here. an awful lot of sites from those early days are not.
if the iraq war madness had not taken over the country, i don't know if i would have become such a political blog addict. and if i hadn't become an addict, i doubt if i would have ever started this site. this is the 5,914th post on this blog. think of what i could have accomplished had i not wasted all that time? so fuck you, george w. bush.
i wonder if this blog would exist if the iraq war had not happened. i was aware of blogs for several years before the run up to the war. my old friend sarah had a (now defunct) blog called "fiendish plot" where she would post her own personal musings. i learned about political blogs at some point in 2002 when the new york times published a letter i wrote and i googled my name shortly afterwards. that led me to a bunch of rightwing blogs mocking my letter, and one liberal blog quoting it approvingly. the first political blog i read on a regular basis was tom tomorrow's blog (which still exists, but doesn't post as often as it used to), which i found by a url printed in the margin of one of the "this modern world" comics. tom's blogroll and in-post links led me to greater left blogistan, such as it was in late 2002.
but i was just a casual reader. what really sucked me into the political blog world were the months immediately preceding the iraq war. the pre-war mania seemed ridiculous beyond belief. the reasons for invading were so transparent, and shifted from one moment to the next. i honestly couldn't believe it was actually happening and that mainstream political commentators were taking this stuff seriously. i mean, who was i? just some young labor lawyer, with an amateur interest in the middle east and who had been trying on-and-off to study arabic as a hobby. i was far from an expert and yet, i regularly saw politicians and journalists report as true things that were obviously false with no correction (like the saddam-bin laden alliance, which only made sense if you had no fucking clue about the political landscape of the arab world). it felt like the world had gone mad. and people, real people, were going to die just because my country had gone off the deep end.
liberal blogs were the only place i could read about politics that weren't gripped by the madness. they were totally ineffective, unfortunately. by that i mean that, for all the blog triumphalism that had been in vogue at various points over the past decade, it was still obvious that they weren't going to stop the march to war any more than the keyboard kommandos were going to win it for freedom. but it was comforting to see that i wasn't the only one to think the country had lost its collective mind.
once i was sucked into reading those blogs, it was only a matter of time before i felt like writing my own. and this site was officially born at the beginning of june 2003. actually, i claimed upyernoz.blogspot.com a month or so before that. it sat for a little while as a template with no posts as i tried to figure out what i wanted to do with this place (which is what my first post refers to). bloggy, that liberal blog that quoted my letter approvingly months before, was the first site to link to me. then this blog pretty much went downhill from there. but it is still here. an awful lot of sites from those early days are not.
if the iraq war madness had not taken over the country, i don't know if i would have become such a political blog addict. and if i hadn't become an addict, i doubt if i would have ever started this site. this is the 5,914th post on this blog. think of what i could have accomplished had i not wasted all that time? so fuck you, george w. bush.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
the wisdom of trump
why does trump think that europeans will vote republican? in a lot of european countries the democrats would be the conservative party. europeans expect their government to either pay for or directly provide health care, government provided pensions, and free or virtually free government supported higher education. they tend to be big on international bodies, and less into nationalism. they are used to powerful unions and are anti-GMO food.
ironically, the one issue that the average european probably isn't more to the left than the average american is immigration.
ironically, the one issue that the average european probably isn't more to the left than the average american is immigration.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
missing max
events like CPAC just aren't that interesting without max blumenthal crashing them and then posting amusing videos about the crazy shit that people said to him.
that was his genre! why did he have to stop?
that was his genre! why did he have to stop?
victorious in my lonely stand against the greader
when RSS readers first came into fashion, people blamed them for their blog's falling hit counts. my hits are about 1/3 of what they used to be. i think that has more to do with the rise of facebook (and the corresponding lessening of interest in reading blogs) than RSS readers, but i guess people reading this site via RSS might have cut into my numbers a little bit.
for some reason, setting up a reader account never appealed to me. i was hooked on the old skool method of blog reading--clicking through my blogroll links to visit the sites i follow, and sometimes clicking on from the links i find on those sites. it doesn't work as well as it used to. while i keep my blogroll up to date, many others don't bother. as blogrolls have fallen out of favor they have either disappeared or (more often) included an increasingly high percentage of links to defunct sites. but i've never been tempted to switch to anything else even though sometimes i feel like i'm the only one who still clicks on those things.
now that the greader is closing, maybe old skool will come back. and if it was responsible for declining hit counts, maybe the hits will go up again. actually, i don't believe that. people attached to reading RSS feeds of blogs will go elsewhere, and those that aren't so attached will probably just fall out of the habit of reading blogs.
none of this means that i am going anywhere. i like the back and forth i sometimes get in the comments, but ultimately i write here more for me than for you. sometimes i just need to get shit off my chest. quite often, in fact. and i like having an archived record of what i am thinking about on most days for the past ten years.
for some reason, setting up a reader account never appealed to me. i was hooked on the old skool method of blog reading--clicking through my blogroll links to visit the sites i follow, and sometimes clicking on from the links i find on those sites. it doesn't work as well as it used to. while i keep my blogroll up to date, many others don't bother. as blogrolls have fallen out of favor they have either disappeared or (more often) included an increasingly high percentage of links to defunct sites. but i've never been tempted to switch to anything else even though sometimes i feel like i'm the only one who still clicks on those things.
now that the greader is closing, maybe old skool will come back. and if it was responsible for declining hit counts, maybe the hits will go up again. actually, i don't believe that. people attached to reading RSS feeds of blogs will go elsewhere, and those that aren't so attached will probably just fall out of the habit of reading blogs.
none of this means that i am going anywhere. i like the back and forth i sometimes get in the comments, but ultimately i write here more for me than for you. sometimes i just need to get shit off my chest. quite often, in fact. and i like having an archived record of what i am thinking about on most days for the past ten years.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
a more accurate pope count
actually, yglesias' chart is wrong. normally, there are three popes at any given moment, the roman catholic pope, the coptic pope and the chalcedonian pope.
so i guess now there are four, if we include emeritus popes.
so i guess now there are four, if we include emeritus popes.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
messenger problem
how much does the arab league listen to shimon peres?
not to comment on the substance of his proposal, but why does peres think his calls will do anything to make arab league action more likely? if anything, i would guess the arab league is less likely to intervene if the israeli president is calling for them to do it.
not to comment on the substance of his proposal, but why does peres think his calls will do anything to make arab league action more likely? if anything, i would guess the arab league is less likely to intervene if the israeli president is calling for them to do it.
just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water
three ukrainian killer dolphins escaped. but fret not, black sea vacationers! there's no actual evidence that they are armed.
one trick pony
how many times can paul ryan roll out a new completely fraudulent budget?
and how many times can the republicans lose by getting behind a ryan plan before they realize that all of his plans are political losers?
and how many times can the republicans lose by getting behind a ryan plan before they realize that all of his plans are political losers?
Monday, March 11, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
bush baggage
this is completely absurd, the only reason jeb is considered to be a serious presidential candidate is because of his "bush baggage." bush baggage is also what got him that interview on fox news sunday.
(via memeorandum)
(via memeorandum)
Saturday, March 9, 2013
орал
by accident, i happened upon this site on zazzle selling t-shirts and hats printed with names of cities from around the world. naturally, i went to see what cities they had from kazakhstan.
it's actually a much better selection than i expected (yay, taraz!). but while i'm impressed that they used the kazakh name for this city (and not the russian one that appears on most international maps), i do think this t-shirt is likely to be misunderstood.
it's actually a much better selection than i expected (yay, taraz!). but while i'm impressed that they used the kazakh name for this city (and not the russian one that appears on most international maps), i do think this t-shirt is likely to be misunderstood.
guns
the day after the gun of an armed guard accidentally fired his gun in a school, south dakota passes a law authorizing teachers to carry guns in schools. because safety.
Friday, March 8, 2013
wow, superfish!
(hey, i would post a video of the simpsons clip if those nazi fox lawyers would let people post clips on youtube)
international women's day
three years ago (give or take an 11 hour time difference), i wrote: " i bet 99% of americans have no idea when it is." i don't think that's true anymore. my FB feed is filled with people who are not from the former USSR mentioning IWD today.
it's still not a real holiday here. by that i mean everyone is at work. but it is getting some recognition in the US at least. and i really do think that facebook has had a role in that.
it's still not a real holiday here. by that i mean everyone is at work. but it is getting some recognition in the US at least. and i really do think that facebook has had a role in that.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
filibusted
jesus harry, stop winking and just go nuclear ferchristssake. i mean, if making an argument as a lawyer that pisses off the gun lobby counts as "extraordinary circumstances", then every nomination the right doesn't like is going to be filibustered. it doesn't take a genius to see that your gentleman's agreement to stop filibuster abuse isn't worth shit. they keep dicking you around, so it's time to pull the nuclear trigger.
do it now, before more of obama's opportunity to nominate judges ticks away.
do it now, before more of obama's opportunity to nominate judges ticks away.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
drone
it's funny that rand paul is doing an old fashioned talk-til-you-drop style filibuster of the brennan nominations because of drones.
get it? talking on and on... drones!!!
oh, never mind.
get it? talking on and on... drones!!!
oh, never mind.
مجنون
this is crazy. i can't see how seizing a bunch of UNDOF peacekeepers this does anything to help the syrian rebel cause, but i can think of a ton of ways that it will hurt them. monkeying around with the UN patrolled zone in golan invites an israeli incursion. it reinforces the idea that syrian rebels are undisciplined and not subject to any central command. it gives further ammunition to people who believe the syrian rebellion is destabilizing to the wider region. it's another strike against the people in the west who have been inching towards giving military aid to the rebels. this incident could cause the UN to pull out, which might cause the IDF to move in to impose their own security zone.
so what is in it for the "martyrs of yamouk"? and who the hell are they anyway? some spin off of the syrian martyrs' brigade? or is this some brand new faction?
(the photo is one i took when i visited the ruins of quneitra in the UN deployment zone in 2005. the white not-wrecked building is UNDOF headquarters)
UPDATE (3/7/2013): it looks like the UN peacekeepers are going to be released. and the yarmouk martyrs’ brigade is now saying that it rescued, rather than kidnapped, the peacekeepers. which doesn't jive at all with what was said in the videos from yesterday. i mean, "We are holding the forces of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force until the withdrawal of Bashar al-Assad’s forces from the village of al-Jamla and its outskirts to their positions" doesn't sound like a rescue to me. nor does "We won’t release them until after the withdrawal of the forces of the regime of Bashar al-Assad from the outskirts of the village of al-Jamla, which is on the border with Israel. We ask them for the complete withdrawal of the forces back to their positions. If the withdrawal does not take place within 24 hours, we will treat them as prisoners of war, and praise be to God almighty."
what i'm guessing is some hothead rebel group saw the peacekeepers delivering ferrying supplies to to the UNDOF, and assumed they were supplying assad's troops. so they took them hostage, posted some videos on youtube about the UN being in cahoots with israel and assad, and got some international attention. once that happened, the much more savvy syrian national coalition got involved, came up with the story that the peacekeepers were being held for their own protection and invited the red cross to come and pick them up.
assuming that happens, that will, at least temporarily, diffuse that particular crisis. there still is a question whether UNDOF has much of a future. only five countries contributed troops to that mission. croation just pulled out. the philippines might after what just happened. which would mean that either (a) austria, india, or japan would have to up their troop commitment, (b) the UN find some other countries to volunteer soldiers, or (c) the mission would have to scale down or possibly end. how israel would react to that (i.e. whether it would create a unilateral security zone to fill the vacuum left by a departing UNDOF) is a big issue.
chavez
with chavez's death and ahmedinejad's presidential term almost over, i wonder what clownish foreign leader the conservatives will elevate into the next major nemesis of the u.s.
chavez was a mess of a leader for venezuela. but i never understood why the right paid so much attention to him. there are a ton of bad leaders in the world who say outrageous things to get attention. most don't get it because the rest of the world just isn't interested enough to care what they say. chavez's own delusions of grandeur led him to believe that he was one of the few who could stop american hegemony. why rightwing americans decided to aid and abet his delusion is beyond me.
chavez was a mess of a leader for venezuela. but i never understood why the right paid so much attention to him. there are a ton of bad leaders in the world who say outrageous things to get attention. most don't get it because the rest of the world just isn't interested enough to care what they say. chavez's own delusions of grandeur led him to believe that he was one of the few who could stop american hegemony. why rightwing americans decided to aid and abet his delusion is beyond me.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
the world needs upyernozistan
i'm reading a book about the middle east that mentioned that saudi arabia is "one of only two countries named after an individual." that made me wonder what the other one was.
eventually i came up with bolivia. but the internet says my book is wrong and there are a lot more than just two. still, i think the wiki list is padded a bit. i don't think mythological figures should count, and the list should be restricted to the current name of a country. rhodesia is a cheat.
eventually i came up with bolivia. but the internet says my book is wrong and there are a lot more than just two. still, i think the wiki list is padded a bit. i don't think mythological figures should count, and the list should be restricted to the current name of a country. rhodesia is a cheat.
Monday, March 4, 2013
watching the future
i haven't worn a watch since my beloved backwards goofy watch conked out in ought-nine. which means i basically became like lots of people are these days, watchless. almost everyone uses cell phones to tell time. now suddenly, i'm seeing several companies bet that cell phone linked watches are the future.
if i can make it display and analogue big-hand/little-hand clock face that runs backwards, i'm in!
if i can make it display and analogue big-hand/little-hand clock face that runs backwards, i'm in!
Saturday, March 2, 2013
the lazies vs. the know-it-alls
i think a major unappreciated generational divide in the online world is the reaction people have when they encounter a word or concept they don't know. older people will generally ask, "what does that mean?" whereas younger people won't ask, they will search the internet to look it up.
to the younger people, the older people probably look lazy by asking rather than trying to figure it out for themselves. to the older people, the younger people probably look like know-it-alls, quietly googling up the answer and pretending they knew it all along.
i'm not sure where the dividing line is exactly. i'm definitely in the google it camp and i'm 43. i think the googlers go a bit older than me, but i'm not sure how far. and of course this is all a big generalization, so there are obviously individual counter-examples.
UPDATE (3/3/13): based on the comments, i realized that i should clarify this a bit. i wasn't thinking about how people react when they encounter a word or concept they don't know in the normal course of their life. i'm talking about a more specific scenario, what happens when people encounter something they are unfamiliar with while they are online. specifically, i was thinking of cases where that happens on either a blog or on facebook, some place where there is an ability for the reader to comment.
so, for example, say you're reading a facebook or blog post and come across a word like "derp" or a quote like "punch it, chewie", and assume that you didn't know what the word or phrase meant. some people would leave a comment asking what it means, and some would not. in my experience, older people are the only ones who leave those comments. younger people (and by that i am including people who are at least slightly older than me, which is still pretty old) tend to check google, find the answer, and then pretend they knew what it meant all along. that's the divide i'm talking about.
i should also add that i'm not trying to make a value judgment about either approach. there's nothing wrong with asking about something you don't know. and i don't think it's really know-it-all-y to quietly google up the answer. all i'm saying is that this does seem to be related to age and i haven't seen anyone else mention the pattern before.
to the younger people, the older people probably look lazy by asking rather than trying to figure it out for themselves. to the older people, the younger people probably look like know-it-alls, quietly googling up the answer and pretending they knew it all along.
i'm not sure where the dividing line is exactly. i'm definitely in the google it camp and i'm 43. i think the googlers go a bit older than me, but i'm not sure how far. and of course this is all a big generalization, so there are obviously individual counter-examples.
UPDATE (3/3/13): based on the comments, i realized that i should clarify this a bit. i wasn't thinking about how people react when they encounter a word or concept they don't know in the normal course of their life. i'm talking about a more specific scenario, what happens when people encounter something they are unfamiliar with while they are online. specifically, i was thinking of cases where that happens on either a blog or on facebook, some place where there is an ability for the reader to comment.
so, for example, say you're reading a facebook or blog post and come across a word like "derp" or a quote like "punch it, chewie", and assume that you didn't know what the word or phrase meant. some people would leave a comment asking what it means, and some would not. in my experience, older people are the only ones who leave those comments. younger people (and by that i am including people who are at least slightly older than me, which is still pretty old) tend to check google, find the answer, and then pretend they knew what it meant all along. that's the divide i'm talking about.
i should also add that i'm not trying to make a value judgment about either approach. there's nothing wrong with asking about something you don't know. and i don't think it's really know-it-all-y to quietly google up the answer. all i'm saying is that this does seem to be related to age and i haven't seen anyone else mention the pattern before.
Friday, March 1, 2013
mmm, horse
the thing is, horse meat tastes better than cow's meat. i'd take qazy over meatballs any day.
i realize the issue is truth in labeling, and i also recognize there's an issue about having chemicals that are injected into race horses entering into the human food system. but that doesn't seem to be where most of the outrage is coming from. instead, much of the story seems to be driven by assumption that horse meat is inherently yucky. i can't help but suspect that some of the people pushing that assumption haven't ever eaten horse.
not that i would wish being stuck in kazakhstan for 8 months in a gut wrenching legal battle on anyone. but at least it made me learn to appreciate food (and drink) made from horses.
i realize the issue is truth in labeling, and i also recognize there's an issue about having chemicals that are injected into race horses entering into the human food system. but that doesn't seem to be where most of the outrage is coming from. instead, much of the story seems to be driven by assumption that horse meat is inherently yucky. i can't help but suspect that some of the people pushing that assumption haven't ever eaten horse.
not that i would wish being stuck in kazakhstan for 8 months in a gut wrenching legal battle on anyone. but at least it made me learn to appreciate food (and drink) made from horses.
these aren't the cuts you're looking for
that would be really cool if he could.
UPDATE: there seems to be a bit of a sci-fi geek controversy over the president's use of the phrase "jedi mindmeld" because "jedi" is star wars and "mind meld" is from star trek. leonard nimoy himself commented on it. the idea is that the proper terms for what obiwan did to that storm trooper in episode IV is called a "jedi mind trick" whereas a "mind meld" is what vulcan's do in star trek.
however, i would argue that we don't know the official name for what obiwan did to that storm trooper. the only time anyone refers to it with a label is in episode VI, when luke tries the same thing on jabba the hutt, and jabba says that that "old jedi mind trick" won't work on him. jabba is clearly speaking dismissively of the "trick." from the context, it does not seem like he is using its official name. it strikes me as overly literal to declare that jedis do "mind tricks" while vulcans do "mind melds". the latter is certainly true, but there is no definitive textual basis for saying that what the jedis do isn't also called a "mind meld." so i'm willing to let the president off the hook on this one.
UPDATE: there seems to be a bit of a sci-fi geek controversy over the president's use of the phrase "jedi mindmeld" because "jedi" is star wars and "mind meld" is from star trek. leonard nimoy himself commented on it. the idea is that the proper terms for what obiwan did to that storm trooper in episode IV is called a "jedi mind trick" whereas a "mind meld" is what vulcan's do in star trek.
however, i would argue that we don't know the official name for what obiwan did to that storm trooper. the only time anyone refers to it with a label is in episode VI, when luke tries the same thing on jabba the hutt, and jabba says that that "old jedi mind trick" won't work on him. jabba is clearly speaking dismissively of the "trick." from the context, it does not seem like he is using its official name. it strikes me as overly literal to declare that jedis do "mind tricks" while vulcans do "mind melds". the latter is certainly true, but there is no definitive textual basis for saying that what the jedis do isn't also called a "mind meld." so i'm willing to let the president off the hook on this one.
the 8 state solution
while i'm glad the obama administration filed its brief in the proposition 8 case, i find its reasoning to be a little bizarre. if the court adopts its view, bans on gay marriage would be unconstitutional only in states that also allow gays to have civil unions with some of the rights of marriage. that would take away any incentive for a state where the population is on the fence about gay marriage to adopt a civil union compromise and will probably leave gays with no partnership rights in those states.
so marriage rights would become and all-or-nothing thing. each state would get to decide whether to give gay people the full right to marry, including calling it "marriage," or giving them no legal recognition at all as a couple. that's going to have real-world consequences for a lot of people. in a more conservative state that hasn't garnered enough political support for full marriage rights, it means that gay people might not have the right to visit their partner in the hospital, they are not going to be able to adopt, etc. on a political level it would close the door to an incremental approach towards acceptance of gay marriage, the approach that has been followed nationally for the past two decades: first giving gay people some rights of marriage and then working to extend the partnership rights until it becomes the whole thing. if the court accepted the administrations all-or-nothing argument that wouldn't work anymore, and, i suspect, a lot of states would choose nothing.
i haven't looked in detail into the justice's individual records on this issue or counted the votes, but my spitball impression is that there's a fair chance that the court might ultimately adopt the administration's view. it has elements that the court likes. the ruling would get nifty labels like "landmark" and "historic." it would be heralded as proof that the court is consistent with the times. at the same time, it would also preserves some degree of choice for states.
so marriage rights would become and all-or-nothing thing. each state would get to decide whether to give gay people the full right to marry, including calling it "marriage," or giving them no legal recognition at all as a couple. that's going to have real-world consequences for a lot of people. in a more conservative state that hasn't garnered enough political support for full marriage rights, it means that gay people might not have the right to visit their partner in the hospital, they are not going to be able to adopt, etc. on a political level it would close the door to an incremental approach towards acceptance of gay marriage, the approach that has been followed nationally for the past two decades: first giving gay people some rights of marriage and then working to extend the partnership rights until it becomes the whole thing. if the court accepted the administrations all-or-nothing argument that wouldn't work anymore, and, i suspect, a lot of states would choose nothing.
i haven't looked in detail into the justice's individual records on this issue or counted the votes, but my spitball impression is that there's a fair chance that the court might ultimately adopt the administration's view. it has elements that the court likes. the ruling would get nifty labels like "landmark" and "historic." it would be heralded as proof that the court is consistent with the times. at the same time, it would also preserves some degree of choice for states.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)